I 47
Feature/Feature Analysis/Linguistics/Gärdenfors: in the tradition of Fregean logic and Tarski's theory of truth, a different approach has emerged than the one I have pursued: the assumption that a set of features of a concept is necessary and sufficient to determine meaning.
---
I 48
For this purpose see Jackendoff, 1983, p. 112
(1); Goddard and Wierzbicka, 1994.
(2)
In particular Katz and Fodor (1963)
(3), R. Lakoff (1971)
(4), Schank, (1975)
(5), Miller and Johnson-Laird (1976)
(6).
Group: GärdenforsVsFeature Analysis.
Concept features/GärdenforsVsKatz/GärdenforsVsLakoff, R./GärdenforsVsFodor/GärdenforsVsFrege: Experimental results speak rahter for dimensional representations that are based on similarities than on representations of features. (See Rosch, 1978,
Prototype theory).
(7)
Prototype theory/Rosch: thesis: objects are more or less typical examples of a category and there is a graduated containment in categories.
1. Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2. Goddard, C., & Wierzbicka, A. (1994). Semantic and lexical universals: Theory and empirical findings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
3. Fodor, J. A., & Katz, J. J. (1963). The structure of a semantic theory. Language, 39, 170–210.
4. Lakoff, R. (1971). IFs, ANDs, and BUTs: about conjunction. In C. Fillmore & D. T. Langendoen (Eds.), Studies in linguistic semantics (pp. 114–149). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
5. Schank, R. C. (1975). Conceptual information processing. New York: Elsevier Science.
6. Miller, G. A., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1976). Language and perception. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
7. Rosch, E. (1978). Prototype classification and logical classification: The two systems. In E. Scholnik (Ed.), New trends in cognitive representation: Challenges to Piaget’s theory (pp. 73–86). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.